The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, with strong prejudice against recreation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Boubaker polynomials (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

The only publications mentionning Boubaker polynomials are from Boubaker himself or closely related people. We are really lacking any relevant source that would confirm that this concept is anyhow accepted among mathematicians. At this time, very far from verifying WP:N (47 google hits). I also hope we can avoid the problems that followed the AfD on French language WP (speedy delete has been used in german and swedish as far as I know). Clem23 (talk) 17:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable enough. I fully endorse an opinion given on the article Talk Page by Lambiam : "by condoning such blatant self-promotion we effectively encourage it". French Tourist (talk) 18:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I corrected the formatting of this nomination. No opinion on deletion. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I wonder if it's correct to call this a "second nomination". I seem to recall that an article with this title was deleted after AfD and rightly so (IMO), but this article is so radically different in content (even though perhaps written by the same person) that that deletion decision simply doesn't apply to it. It's another article with the same title, not the same article that was AfD'd before. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While the content may differ dramatically, this is the second nomination for the article entitled "Boubaker polynomials". As a procedural matter, this nomination is and should be separate from the first, even if the content under consideration does not overlap at all except for the title. We see this sometimes where a deleted term ends up as the name for a band; the two are unrelated, and that's usually noted in the debate (which this has been, now, as well). UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Not to Delete ; the references are true, some notorious publication in the press about it. --Mario scolas (talk) 19:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  The references do indeed exist, but they are from Boubaker himself (and not really notorious). No mention of the polynom in any other scientific publication, and that's the problem. Clem23 (talk) 07:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete as a recreation. The original AFD closed as delete due to apparent non-notability. Change in the precise content of the page aside, those concerns are abosutely not addressed with this new version. As mentioned by others, hardly any ghits and no independent publications on them. And as far as I can tell from Google Scholar, their papers haven't even been cited by anyone other than themselves. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think "speedy delete" is ever appropriate when some people who understand what the article says are arguing in good faith for keeping the article. Even if I thought this article were a re-creation of a properly deleted article (and it is not a re-creation) I would still hold that. There is not doctrine of stare decisis in deletions, and that is as it should be. As for the claim that the grounds for deletion was non-notability, I think that is highly questionable. It may be that the nominator and at least some of those voting for deletion had in mind those grounds, but one cannot read the minds of all who voted for deletion. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. No, but I can read the deletion comments, and everyone who !voted to delete said it wasn't notable; pretty clear to me. And if users in good faith dispute the result of the last AFD, there is a venue for them to challenge it. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as per Someguy1221. A non-notable topic does not become notable by rewriting the article text. If not deemed speediable, my recommendation is still Delete: not notable.  --Lambiam 23:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not yet notable. Only possibly reliable source to support notability reads as press release, and this is after significant effort by many individuals to source this article. I personally have spent several hours searching, and the enthusiasm of its proponents compared to the number of sources generated, should indicate the difficulty. JackSchmidt (talk) 04:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment One should note that very recently a possible WP:RS has been given, but only one, and it was not clear to me how independent the source was (to my very weak french, it read like a departmental newsletter; the source itself seems not to be such a newsletter, but perhaps it was released as "copy" by a university to the magazine; in the language of WP:N, a "press release"). At any rate, speedy deletes based on the old memory of the article, should check out the new (a day or two old) source given to support notability claim, especially those with passingly good french. JackSchmidt (talk) 04:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, the journal is a tunisian magazine (officially 55000 printed). It is treating about very general topics and does not have any scientific credibility as far as I know. The article is presenting Mr Boubaker's work with some mistakes, and at the end is talking more about the interest of the scientist for poetry and his acknowledgements to the tunisian president. It nevertheless confirms what we did know, that Boubaker & all are real researchers in mathematics and that they claim to have invented that polynom. But nothing consistent otherwise. Clem23 (talk) 07:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Not to delete see http://www.tunisie7arts.com/?nomPage=suite&newsid=555 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.224.221.156 (talk)

  Note : this is most likely, according to the used IP, from Boubaker. Darkoneko (talk) 14:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Warning to they who contributed to make and keep this discussion at a high level. Please J. C. M._Clem23 if you have problems with the Tunisian President, that is your matter, but please leave enPW away from Racism and Xenophobea, Do you want to project your behaviour in En.WP?? Do you want everyone know Which ideas you have already expressed in fr.WP. Ok? You promised to order an immediate deletion of this page from en.WP, do you think enWP administrators, who contributed to its enhancement,are your agents?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.224.221.156 (talk)

For the 25th time I've never ever insulted anybody about those polynoms, especially not for racial issues. I'm not going to apologize because your only solution to save "your" article is to use calomny against those who propose to remove it (I'm not talking only about me). Your widespread vandalisms on the french language wikipedia over the past few days have been tiresome, but this nomination is disconnected (I was willing to do so way before that). Clem23 (talk) 22:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Sir, you decided it!

En.WP's will see immediately your discussion pages with administrators , saved in htm. format, from your OWN archives where you express your opinion and your real motivations ...(don't think we can rewrite them here .. this site is very clean) ... the honorable EN WP's will see and evaluate... .

For your informations, many En.WP administrators contributed to the correction on SCIENTIFIC Basis .. NEVER any one of them behaved like you in FR.WP..

In every case En.WP is too clean for you, so thanks to that feature, your language and behaviour in En.WP seem to be very very very different from yours in Fr.WP!!!!!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.224.221.156 (talk)

Please do not hesitate to show the concerned pages, I have nothing to hide. But if possible show the diffs where the alledged insults are: Saying "they are here" in pointing a 500 message archive page and mixing what other people said in totally different cases with pure fakes as you did on fr:wp is not so honest :-). Clem23 (talk) 22:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you EN.WP, you made C.L.Martin bahaving like an ANGEL !!!. If only you know how was he in FR.WP.

Ok, the en.WP will judge if what Jean-Clement Martin23 wrote to Balougador Popo le chien , and Doctorcosmos and others was racist or not, and his annexed antecedants with other people will be examinated.

You know, Clem23 is not very wise, he wants to make the debate's level low... so our last comment to him is : good night! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.224.219.31 (talk) 22:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clem 23 acts only by one feeling of hatred. The sources are sufficient to show the relevance of this article.--Mario scolas (talk) 23:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A very interesting link. Mario scolas is the worst ever vandal on the french and dutch wikipedia. He has been a very painful issue for us, with very violent threats towards 8 sysops or chechusers (and even Anthere). I'm somehow surprised that he is still active there as his case has been notified on meta many times. If somebody says that he's not active as a vandal on en:WP, check the history of my talk page... Clem23 (talk) 07:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The specialist in lynching comes here with his own problem (see the discussion[1]). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mario scolas (talk • contribs) 18:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To each page his own problem, vandal. The present page is about wether to keep a page, and that and this one (amongst others...) are about you. Darkoneko (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I was considering merge to Chebyshev_polynomial, but the absence of any clearly reliable source suggests otherwise. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Please be aware !! Sir, please debate on the polynomials use, proprieties and usefulness, don't let such persons disturbing the debate; P.S. see the page Dicussion of Boubaker Polynomials , and be wondered by the level of the discussion (criticism, demonstrations, formulae correction..), if someone tries to make the level lower by evoking insults don't give it attention ; you'll see it will vanish naturally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.224.219.31 (talk) 00:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Note : this, too (sigh...), is most likely, according to the used IP, from Boubaker. Darkoneko (talk) 14:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Not to Delete. The references added (in French) are true and well-known, the page has been rewritten by several WP contributors in a scientific way (we checked the discussion page). Claiming that :" ..The only publications mentionning these polynomials are from the author himself or closely related people<see Clem23's comments above>" is simply wrong and strange, what does closely related people mean??, the press? Citypark2008 (talk) 02:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  closely related: People working in the same researcher team. This opinion might be sock-puppetry. Clem23 (talk) 07:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Not to Delete. Undiscussable notority, may French-native operators check (and translate the content) the 3 last annexed references.K71811418 (talk) 03:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Very likely sock/meatpuppet. Clem23 (talk) 07:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Another reference has been added by 41.224.219.31. I merged two listed references, since they were different web versions of the same LaPresse article, leaving two sources which support a claim of notability. This is exactly the sort of edit which forces me to reconsider my vote. My only remaining concern is whether the sources are independent; both are by the same author and published in the same magazine, but are separated by several months. At this stage, if the consensus is delete, I think it would be worthwhile to userfy the page; presumably if the polynomials can generate this much press in a few months, they could generate more over the next few months, until it becomes clear the subject is notable enough for inclusion. JackSchmidt (talk) 03:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment In a different direction, I suspect some editors are overworried about the "scholarly honor" of Boubaker the person (who is so uncouth to use his own name in his article's titles at least three times). I suspect other editors are over-concerned with the "lasting scholarly value" of the research, the utility of the polynomials, how intrinsically interesting or beautiful they are, etc. The AfD is just here to decide if the article meets wikipedia's inclusion criteria, certainly not to endorse (or demean) the man behind the polynomials, and not even to judge the value of the polynomials themselves. The encyclopedia should document those things, that for whatever unknowable reasons, human beings have decided are worthy of publication and "significant coverage". Surely catastrophe theory, fractals, chaos theory, E8, and others have received more press coverage than other more "noble" or "deserving" mathematics, but in their own way they have impacted human history, and so have a place in the encyclopedia. Certainly all things noble and deserving better be included too, and luckily those will get significant coverage in first rate scholarly journals. At any rate, all I'm trying to get at, is that this AfD isn't some sort of scholarly debate. No one should ask the researchers to justify their research, and the researchers should not try to justify it here. Simply finding citations to the polynomials in reliable sources, and otherwise meeting the inclusion guidelines is what should be at issue. JackSchmidt (talk) 03:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Recreation. ➪HiDrNick! 05:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As I have pointed out above, this is clearly NOT a re-creation. I mention it here since some people don't read the who page. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. This article has been deleted on many other projects such as :de or :sv. This has no believable source. This is a hoax, don't be part of it. This link explain that there is a serious problem. Like tears in rain (talk) 09:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Not to Delete 196.203.50.144 (talk) 10:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Comes from the creator that has already "voted" 3 times. Unfortunately he has 2 internet accesses and dynamic IP. Are we going to have all of them? Clem23 (talk) 10:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. Self-promotion + recreation + undocumented/able. Popo le Chien (talk) 12:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete. Apart from the article itself, the user has been a real problem on frwiki for the last 8 months (he even tried to fake being an advocate office recently and posting "alarming" comments on random talk pages...). We'll probably have to block /16 ranges pretty soon... An IP list is available at fr:Wikipédia:Vandalisme de longue durée/Mmbmmmbm#Adresses_IP_connues, amongst other things (in french, but IP are universal :) Darkoneko (talk) 14:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Research not recognized + serious problem on WP-fr (we must stop this as soon as possible). DocteurCosmos (talk) 14:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment : as Tourist says below, "topic is covered only by a very small number of sources, which hardly pass the tests of Wikipedia:Reliable sources" + intolerable racist-salted self-promotion (sorry if my english is not understandable). It makes not only one but two good reasons for deletion. DocteurCosmos (talk) 06:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and editprotect. This article was already deleted once. Now, once again, there is one registered user and a few anonymous IPs pushing heavily for its inclusion. There is only one source offered for these polynomials besides that written by the author himself, and that is an obscure Tunisian magazine written entirely in French. A Google scholar search returns only three hits on the subject. Again, two of these are by Boubaker himself. It's not looking good. Delete with prejudice. The author(s) should have to request a review to recreate the article again. Silly rabbit (talk) 15:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Literally, there's only one real hit on Google Scholar, written by H. Labiadh. The other two hits are just the citations Labiadh made to two of Boubaker's papers. And what do you know, Labiadh co-authored at least one of them. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Not to Delete I knew the Boubaker polynomials from the second refernce. Thanks to WP I could establish an ORDINARY GENERATING FUNCTION -in press- of the shape:

${\displaystyle \sum _{n=0}^{\infty }B_{n}(x)t^{n}={\frac {a+bt^{2)){1-2tx+t^{2))}.\,\!}$

Alieldear (talk) 16:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: 3rd sock-puppet already, + 2 IP "votes". It's not a vote - thus it would be nice if you could bring any extra references. What would be the most interesting would be scientific publications not connected to the main team that mention the boubaker polynomials. I do not see any yet. Clem23 (talk) 17:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is not a vote. Please read over the article and its sources before commenting. If you do think the article should not be included in wikipedia, please try to indicate what part of the inclusion guidelines it fails. If you believe it should be included, please try to indicate why it meets those guidelines. An article topic may easily move from not meeting the inclusion criteria to meeting the inclusion criteria. For instance in 2003, it was premature to discuss the 2008 Oscars, and such an article would be deleted under WP:CRYSTAL, but such an article is clearly worth including now. Some of the previous comments address these issues, but many include details unrelated to the inclusion guidelines. JackSchmidt (talk) 16:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I still think the article fails to meet notability guidelines, because though notability is claimed, and supported by two reasonably reliable sources, the coverage is not yet "significant". One reporter for one magazine has covered the polynomials (twice), while the standard for inclusion of a mathematical concept is usually several available citations from peer-reviewed journals, and preferably articles written by authors outside of the core group of researchers. Indeed, a good article has explicit citations to textbooks which cover the topic. JackSchmidt (talk) 16:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I wonder if these "non-notability" claims would ever have been mentioned if not for the alleged "self-promotion" problem. Is there a hard-and-fast rule forbidding "self-promotion" or is there rather (as I think there ought to be) a rule against the various evils that can often result from self-promotion? There's an article titled Harry Binswanger, which once stated erroneously that he was a professor at Duke University. Harry Binswanger himself edited it so that it said he visited Duke for one day and gave a lecture there. Someone objected that one should never edit an article about oneself. I think rules of that sort are too extreme; obviously weakening the claim from a statement that he was a professor there, to the statement that he gave a lecture there one day, is not an instance of using Wikipedia to advertise oneself. Even if someone does in effect advertise himself, I don't think that should be considered a problem as long as the article limits itself only to the sort of content that a disinterested party would have written about the topic. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Four or five intervening parties here (among which myself) have been expressing themselves here mostly because they were fed up by the behavior of some user (users ?) on :fr, retrying ten times to recreate the deleted page under variations of its initial name, or trying to insert links towards it in the article fr:Polynôme. So, certainly, a disruptive behavior has caused much of the fuss here. If it has consequences on the length of this discussion, it is of very small relevance on the analysis of the article relevance. This article is not relevant, not because its author has not understood how to behave properly on WP, but because its topic is covered only by a very small number of sources, which hardly pass the tests of Wikipedia:Reliable sources (scientific articles by Mr Boubaker himself or co-publishers, two articles in a generalist newspaper which contain quite suprising mathematical assertions ("Mr Boubaker has broken with the 22 polynomials classified in five families (beginning in 830 with the so-called canonical polynomials of Khawarizmi) ; while the last three have been classified by T. Chihara in 2004, V. Jones and P.J. Namara in 2006, they have been rejoined and overtaken by what is to be called as from April 14th 2007 Boubaker polynomials0" (bad translation from French by myself)) which should disqualify them as sources of an article of abstract mathematics, or even as proof of the notability of a mathematical concept. French Tourist (talk) 22:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I may have been the first to apply the label "self-promotion",[2] yet my argument here for deletion has solely been the lack of notability. While COI is not per se an argument for deletion, there is a good reason to apply the notability rule extra diligently in case of self-promotion.  --Lambiam 06:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment in answer the ((!vote)) frame : about five participants to this discussion (myself, Like tears in rain, Popo le Chien, Darkoneko, DocteurCosmos) are sysops on :fr Wikipedia, lured there by a discussion on our Sysop Noticeboard about actions required to counteract disruptive behaviour around these Boubaker Polynomials. I hope this can explain the probably rather astounding participation on this not quite sexy topic. French Tourist (talk) 22:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  comment too. The page has just been is being (*sigh*) under sock attack (see also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Clem32_and_User:Mario_scolas for information). I took the liberty of reverting it. Hopes it doesn't cause any problem. Darkoneko (talk) 12:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and editprotect. I stumbled on this page a couple of weeks ago. This is 2006-2007 material, according to the references, and nothing particularly exceptional. Time will tell us if this is really notable for inclusion (as for now, it is not). Plus, original research, self promotion, repeated spamming. There is plenty of reasons to delete it, and to take measures so that the author will not attempt to recreate it a third time. --Fph (talk) 21:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Unfortunatly, if this goes like frwiki, protection against recreation won't help (the bad title blacklist can't be used, as there could be too many false positives) : it will simply recreated using similar titles (examples ). Darkoneko (talk) 22:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete I came to that page earlier, and tried to find reliable sources for this. This is non-notable original research and should be deleted. Herve661 (talk) 14:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Not to delete , the last debate,VERY VERY intresting DEBATE (see translation) : [3]between the 'DELETE' claimer Clem23 and some Fr.Administrators. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Citypark2008 (talk • contribs)

I have no particular interest in whether this article is or is not deleted. An editor noted some issues with the conduct of editors, which I addressed. I further recommended additional actions if additional disruption took place. I note also, for the record, that you have already recommended that the article should not be deleted; this is a duplicate !vote. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ultraexactzz:

It was precised that this is not a 'MAJORITY VOTE'; and we wrote this message just because you adressed us a message telling about about a possible BLOCKING.. and as we fear you do it, we contacted you this way.... this 'vote' is naturally withdrawn. Ok? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Citypark2008 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it's a discussion and debate - but the recommendations to Keep or Delete are what is debated, as well as their reasoning for so recommending. On that basis, every editor who participates can make one such recommendation, which can be changed or amended, but not duplicated. The warning was in reference to re-adding comments that had been moved (not deleted), and had nothing to do with participation in general. By all means, feel free to leave messages for me on my talk page, rather than here, if the comment is for me rather than on the article or its fate. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Imo the most interesting point was stoping the vandalisms from user:Mario scolas' socks and inform the admins here about the numerous problems encountered with this guy. This is now done, it's never a good thing that an editor is blocked permanently, but in this case it was the only solution. Then there is this polynom author, which is on my opinion a secondary problem despite his trend to spam tenth of talk pages on fr:WP in revealing at the same time a bunch of user's real names. In weeks (months, it dates back to the beginning of may 2007) of debate he hasn't been able to provide any reliable reference about these Boubaker polynomials. From my experience of WP, the more socks a person uses the less fair arguments she has. So for me it's now over - we'll continue blocking the spamming IP on WP:fr, delete the recreation of articles about Boubaker polynomials, but I stop wasting time in trying to have a fair discussions when there is so much bad faith involved. Clem23 (talk) 13:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: to voters; let’s summarize the 5-days (legal duration) debate:

Thanks to En.WP administrators wisdom  :

>Intentioned contributes (Mario, Clem23, Popo le Chien, K71811408, DoctorCosmso, Darkoneko..) were Check&mate. Racism and xenophobia deviation has been avoided.

>Sock/meat-puppets were unveiled

>A deletion in 5 seconds (the time of reading the Nationality of the contributors ) as in Fr.WP has been avoided.

>Attempts to tame En.WP Operators failed, see  : [4] '..§4 : ufortunately this page is becoming out of the cotrol of FR.WP.."'translation of a last message from Clem23

Now let's let En.WP’s apply En.WP lawsCitypark2008 (talk) 18:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.